29. Mär 2024, 00:04 Hallo Gast.
Willkommen Gast. Bitte einloggen oder registrieren. Haben Sie Ihre Aktivierungs E-Mail übersehen?

Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge. Hierbei werden gemäß Datenschutzerklärung Benutzername und Passwort verschlüsselt für die gewählte Dauer in einem Cookie abgelegt.


Select Boards:
 
Language:
 


Autor Thema: General Balance Discussion  (Gelesen 77737 mal)

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #150 am: 19. Apr 2020, 18:38 »
i just wanted to add to my idea about small strong AoE against clumping.
I think it's very important that those abilities work pretty much instantly. If the clumping opponent (especially when they are on-host) can simply spam "r" when hearing a warning shot it won't prevent them from clumping in the first place.
There needs to be a constant threat so that players start to pre-split and just make sure that their units never clump too much.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #151 am: 29. Apr 2020, 16:16 »
Again just something to add to my idea about why more strong small AoE damage would be good for Edain. It is a well known effect in other rts that being able to clump several units into a single unit size kind of breaks the usual logic of good formations like forming concaves. It is for example a classic tactic for mutalisks in starcraft 1 or phoenixes in starcraft 2. The way the engine works in rotwk just makes this 1 size battalion clumping the optimal way to fight melee engagements, even more so ranged engaments and also protects from cavalry. I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly the reason why vanilla and the fan patches have so many devastating AoE spells and unit abilities. So i just think that this engine needs strong AoE damage to keep the game dynamic and fun, so that you can actually micro battalions in good formations, like trying to prevent getting individual battalions trampled or kiting with individual archer battalions back etc etc
Mass slaying abilities in edain have often been seen very negatively, but this has much to do with the fact that remaxing after losing your army is like 3 times harder than in vanilla (ca. half the income and 50% more CP compared to vanilla). Losing too many troops in edain often means losing the game not matter how far ahead you had been in any other metric, which is why players traditionally hated to much mass slaying abilities.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #152 am: 29. Apr 2020, 18:53 »
i wouldn't decrease inflation, i would actually increase it but do some other key things

hi, when talking about edain gameplay, comebacks, sieges and inflation i have been hearing some people saying that you need a certain amount of snowballing so that one player can eventually win. Others use the term as if it means nothing more than "getting ahead". Both of these ideas are so wrong that i needed to write about :D
snowballing should mean that having an advantage now will grant you an even bigger advantage soon. For example if you have an advantage in Tennis, you don't have a better chance of winning the next point. There is 0 snowballing, it doesn't need snowballing, and it's much better because of it.

Edain (especially before inflation) had absolutely insane snowballing, even for an rts game . So much so that winning a small engagement in the early game could often decide the game, the only reason you "needed" so much snowballing is because the defenders advantage is so disgustingly high that you otherwise would need 2 hours to win the siege of a game that was decided after 5 minutes. For example, just being ahead a single battalion in the early game means you're gonna win the fight over the farm, so now you are ahead 1 battalion and 1 farm. Also 2 battalions fight against 1 battalion so efficiently that they barely lose any units. So it just keeps snowballing if no massive blunders occur. Another source of snowballing is the way spellbook points are gathered.

Inflation is one of the biggest counter mechanics to this high snowballing. It keeps the game open and undecided for much longer, you need to play well to win even when ahead or you lose your advantage. I would definitely not decrease inflation. I think people didn't like it because you don't have money for anything and because sieges take even longer that before, and more people are trying comebacks nowadays so sieges are more common.

Instead of decreasing inflation, how about edain makes winning sieges  easier and quicker through various means, increases the general income from farms so people finally have some money to spend in the midgame and yes, actually *increase* inflation a little bit more while decreasing the cost of outside eco. This way you would still be fighting over all 14 outside farms but getting more than say 16 farms in total wouldn't give you any more money. So you only build 2,3 inside eco and the rest is tech and production buildings. This would harmonize well with the increased general income so you can actually produce units from 2,3 or 4 unit production buildings. Which also allows for more playstyles and unit compositions.
A higher economy and more production buildings could also solve another problem that makes edain campy. Namely that losing units is often game losing because remaxing takes so long that you cannot fight your opponent for so long that you lose all map control because of it. Also,
the strong small AoE damage spells that i had suggested earlier would also have less danger of being game ending if remaxing would be easier.
« Letzte Änderung: 29. Apr 2020, 18:57 von Big F »

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 369
  • #teamfish
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #153 am: 1. Aug 2020, 16:55 »
Hello everyone,
I would like to talk about the tower on level 3 farms (once again :P).
At the moment each farm on a settlement get's a little ... I mean big tower when you have the level 3 economy upgrade researched.
In my opinion this tower deals too much damage so that it forces harassing battalions to retreate and wait until the tower stops shooting as it can do this "only" with an acitve ability. Even though you might think that this makes for some nice interaction between the players in the "harassing game" it just slows down the overall gameplay and it rewards the player that forms a deathball while it punishes the player that trys to splitt and harass at many diffrent places, in my opinion.
The investment in the economy upgrades would already be worthwhile without the defensiv tower because you get more money.
In order to have some access to the tower on the farm I would suggest to have it as an upgrade you can buy on each individual farm that enables the player to use the active ability for the tower.

In short (and maybe better understandable :D) form:
Remove the tower on level 3 farms as it is now because it slows the gameplay down.
Instead add it as an upgrade you can research on each level 3 farm (I hope that would be fine for playing vs the AI ...)

What do you think?
Best regards,
Smeargollum


"What if the real balance was the friends we made along the way?"

FG15

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.268
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #154 am: 1. Aug 2020, 18:33 »
There aren't any visuals for such an extra upgrade.

JoJo(TheRealOne)

  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • **
  • Beiträge: 120
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #155 am: 1. Aug 2020, 22:42 »
Hello,

I just noticed that bannercarriers can survive more trampels then the battalions they belong to do. That shouldn't be the case in my opinion. Banners are strong enough by themselfes and don't need to save a unit from being wiped out by a cav charge. So I suggest to reduce their hp/armor to the amount the usual archers have.

FG15

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.268
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #156 am: 1. Aug 2020, 23:05 »
Are you talking about banner carriers in general or those of archers? Because usually different units use the exact same banner carrier, such that a change to the banner carrier of archers would affect the one of swords or pikes too.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Galadhrim
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #157 am: 9. Aug 2020, 14:57 »
Hello there :)

I’d like to suggest to reduce the ranged-damage (PIERCE)  taken by cavalry from 100% down to 65% by changing their armorset.

Now you may wonder why I do suggest that. Let me explain:

Let’s look at other units that counter each other:

Cavalry is the counter to swordsmen, because of that cavalry deals more damage vs swordsmen (135% of their normal damage), and at the same time swordsmen deal less damage (only 30%) to cavalry.

The same goes for swordsmen countering pikes: Pikes suffer more damage from swords (135%) while dealing less damage to them as well (only 65%).
Archers deal more damage to pikes (135%) because they counter them, this means pikes also deal less damage to archers.
It’s the same with cavalry and pikes; pikes deal bonusdamage vs cavalry and cavalry deal less damage to pikes.

Now we look at cavalry vs archers: The first part is the same, cavalry deals 135% damage vs archers … and yet archers deal a full 100% damage vs cavalry.

In my opinion that doesn’t really make sense. Every unit deals reduced damage to it’s counter except for archers.

The suggested change however would not only bring in line some numbers, but also affect the gameplay in a positive way.
Right now it can be observed quite often that cavalry – even expensive elite units – are simply shot down before reaching the enemy archers, the units they are supposed to counter. Increasing their resistance to archers would reward players who try to outmicro the enemy pikes over those who rely on own archers to “counter” enemy ranged units (which atm can lead to a rather campy and clumpy gameplay).


Best regards,
Seleukos

PS.
I know that with the logic of our „real world“ this change doesn‘t make too much sense, since archers were a good counter to charging cavalry. This is a game however, and in terms of gameplay cavalry is the counter to archers and that means, imo, that archers shouldn’t deal a lot of damage to cavalry. :P

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 369
  • #teamfish
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #158 am: 14. Aug 2020, 14:18 »
Hello everyone!
Today I would like to talk about some mechanics I don't like about some factions specific outposts.

Immediate autorepair:
At the moment outposts like the Dunedain, Dale, Laketown, Mirkwood, etc. repair themselves as soon as they are no longer under attack, just like a citadel.
That is in my opinion way too strong because, unlike the citadel, such an outpost does quite a lot for a player. You can buy a tower that does a lot of damage, it has a heal and leadership, it gives you some money, ...
It is always quite a committed attack when you attack such a defensively strong outpost, but right now you have to be really certain to crush the enemys army because when you don't manage to win the battel and destroy the outpost all your effort was for nothing because the outpost is immediately repaired again.
So I would suggest to simply remove this mechanic and let such outposts get repaired just like every other building (after some time a worker appears who slowly repairs it.


Having a permanent heal in combination with a strong leadership:
Occures for Dunedain, Dale and Laketown Outpost (maybe also some other one I don't remember rigth now). That is in my opinon also way too strong for the defense. I think just the heal is not that big of a problem since it still takes some time to heal your army, but in my opinion it is too much when you get basicly the boni of a well and a hero statue because the leadership makes it almost impossible to fight near an outpost.
So I would suggest to leave the heal as it is now but remove the leadership.

What do you think about this problematic?

Best regards,
Smeargollum


"What if the real balance was the friends we made along the way?"

Snens

  • Pförtner von Bree
  • *
  • Beiträge: 99
  • Zieh den Rucksack aus, wenn du mit mir redest!
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #159 am: 14. Aug 2020, 14:37 »
The first point is really good, those outposts get repaired way to fast, since they get repaired between 2 shots of the same catapult. That shouldn't be a thing imo.

To your second point: I agree that the leadership combined with the well is really strong, or even too strong; It's awful to fight a Dunedain outpost, with this healing tent and gets even worse when he has the tower, but for me there would be no reason to build the dale or laketown outpost anymore, if the leadership gets removed, because they're already to weak; Maybe they should get better Heroes/units in return? Same goes for the special Gondor outpost, dk how its called.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Galadhrim
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #160 am: 14. Aug 2020, 15:24 »
I too agree with Gollum. I think removing the insta repair as well as the leadership would be a good idea for sure.

I also agree with Snens that some outposts aren't that usefull without that leadership. However, the Dunedain outpost already got some nice changes (making it cheaper and allow unit recruitment from the start) that gives the outpost a better role in Imladris' gameplay.
I think if the same would be done to the Dale and Laketown outpost it could offer some nice builds focused on faster units early on.
I also don't think the Dol Amroth outpost is a problem, as far as I know it has no insta repair and it costs far more.

Also, I'd rather have a useless outpost in the game than an op one :D But I don't think Dale and laketown would be totally useless if you can build units from the start (even without the leadership).

Best regards,
Seleukos

Snens

  • Pförtner von Bree
  • *
  • Beiträge: 99
  • Zieh den Rucksack aus, wenn du mit mir redest!
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #161 am: 22. Aug 2020, 12:41 »
Hello guys,
lately I have had some really antifun games, when one Player managed to conquer the whole map, while the other one had to hide in base. (4.5.2 flashbacks, I was sweating:D )
At some time "player 1" , who has the map, is building catapults to force the basecamping player 2 out of his base.
Right after he was done removing the annoying tiny walls at the Isengart base, he decides to destroy the furnace in front of him, but then he sees his catas damage, bruh...
One Rohan catapult needs exactly 14 shots to destroy a level 3 inbase eco building (e.g. furnace) and that is imo way to much. ( 5 shots would be fine )
End of the story is that basecamping player 2, with the better late game faction, wins the game, since he just doesn't destroy the catas as they deal minimal damage, so he focuses on upgrading his army/building heroes. At some point, hours later, he reaches the point, that his army is unstoppable and can easily face the enemy, as player 1's current army is aswell weakened in direct fights, since he is blocking some CP with catas.

What I want to say is that all catapults, even Gondor catapults with the fire upgrade and Mordor trollcatas etc. should get a huge damage buff against buildings, as they deal no serious damage to buildings in base and have high costs and block many CP.
It get's even worse when you try to destroy a wall of a good faction's fortress with catapults, as they have even more HP then most of the other buildings and u can't even target them half of the time due to bugs...
Right now catas are way more efficient against soldiers than buildings, change my mind.


PS: Lorien base is pure cancer to siege, as the troops can even hide when they're far from the fortress, so upgraded archer's can take catapults out easily, even though you don't even need to kill the catas, since the bridges and platforms can tank the catas for hours before they reach actual buildings.

The_Necromancer0

  • Edain Team
  • Beschützer des verbotenen Weihers
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 1.529
  • There is evil there that does not sleep
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #162 am: 22. Aug 2020, 12:51 »
A replay if possible would be of great help in this discussion.
Come chat Edain on Discord: https://discord.gg/CMhkeb8
Questions on the Mod? Visit the Official Wiki: http://edain.wikia.com/

Snens

  • Pförtner von Bree
  • *
  • Beiträge: 99
  • Zieh den Rucksack aus, wenn du mit mir redest!
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #163 am: 23. Aug 2020, 13:41 »
Here are some replays, in both games lothlorien was completely out of the game, but managed to win due to the cancer base, that you cannot siege.
Actually i forgot to save the Isen-Rohan gameplay but these replays should show my problem too.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Galadhrim
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #164 am: 23. Aug 2020, 15:22 »
Hi :)
I know what you are talking about and I agree on the general problem.
The most problematic factions are Isengart, Mordor and Lorien, I'd say, because they all have a very strong lg that is close to unbeatable for some factions and they all three can camp very well.
With their much stronger lg these factions force you to finish them early on, but that is very risky, because you invest a lot of money in siegeweapons and they have the defenders advantage (towers, healing, fear effects, (Angmar walls), attacking units hit buildings instead of enemy units, and so on).
Now as far as I know one of the "goals of 4.5" was to make comebacks easier. Changes like the inflation and the central CP-upgrades help with making comebacks easier.
Also, according to this article catapults should not be able to destroy an entire base and rams combined with infantry should storm the enemy base.  The problem is, that you often can’t attack a base with rams and melee units, especially not one of the named factions: Lorien for example can build the statues that cause your units to run away all the time. Two or three of these make any ram based attack impossible. Mordor also can build the watcher expansions to make any enemy run away in fear. Unless you have a permanent fear resistance in form of a hero you can’t attack.
Isengart has strong towers and warg expansions (you basically can’t kill the warg, as soon as the first one dies another one spawns) and can produce a lot of units very fast.

I don’t really have an idea how to solve this problem tho.   
Nerfing towers would certainly help, but it could lead to other problems (baserushes could be to strong again, like they were in MEGA).
Buffing catapults would kinda undermine the attempt of making sieges more dynamic and fun to play.
Some changes could be:
-nerfing of the warg century by adding a timer before the next warg spawns 
-removing the little wall parts of Isengart and Modor bases that make it impossible to shoot over them
-giving reliable fear resistance to all factions and/or removing the fear expansions Lorien and Mordor has
giving all factions a way to permanently reveal stealthed units at range and/or changing/removing the mist upgrade of the Lorien base

Also the walls and bridges of the Lorien base has a lot of hp, maybe that could be reduced as well (or the expansions should be attackable separately).


That are my thoughts on that topic for now :)

Best regards,
Seleukos